ATRIUMsearch → argument graph
Article · 2026-07-12 · 3 moments

Directly Responsible Individuals (DRI)

Directly Responsible Individuals (DRI) I went looking for a definition of "Directly Responsible Individuals" and the best I found was in the GitLab handbook. Apparently the term originated at Apple, where it's used to describe the person who is "ultimately accountable for the success or failure of a specific project, initiative, or activity". I've been thinking about this term recently in the context of LLM-powered agents and how they fit into human organizations. I don't think an agent should ✦ AI generated

Read original ↗
GUEST IBM (1979 training slide, cited by Simon Willison)HOST Simon Willison
01
Context◆

A computer can never be held accountable, and therefore a computer must never make a management decision, as stated in IBM's 1979 training materials.

Willison cites IBM's famous 1979 training slide asserting that because computers cannot be held accountable, they must never make management decisions, reinforcing his point about AI agents and accountability.

transcript

IBM (1979 training slide, cited by Simon Willison): A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.

gives example · 1rebuts · 3

02
Definition

A Directly Responsible Individual is the person who is ultimately accountable for the success or failure of a specific project, initiative, or activity, a term that originated at Apple and is documented in the GitLab handbook.

The author defines 'Directly Responsible Individual' (DRI), tracing its origin to Apple and citing the GitLab handbook's description of the term.

transcript

Simon Willison: Apparently the term originated at Apple, where it's used to describe the person who is "ultimately accountable for the success or failure of a specific project, initiative, or activity".

03
Claim◆

An LLM-powered agent should never be considered the DRI for a project, because accountability is a uniquely human capacity that machines lack.

Willison argues AI agents should never hold the role of Directly Responsible Individual, since only humans can genuinely be held accountable for outcomes.

transcript

Simon Willison: I don't think an agent should ever be considered the DRI for a project - that's something that feels uniquely human to me, because humans can take accountability for their actions where machines cannot.

provides context · 1rebuts · 1supports · 2

Highlight slides
IBM 1979: Computers Can't Be Held Accountable✦ from: A computer can never be held accountable, and therefore a computer must never make a management decision, as stated in IBM's 1979 training materials.AI Agents Can't Be the DRI✦ from: An LLM-powered agent should never be considered the DRI for a project, because accountability is a uniquely human capacity that machines lack.Willison's Point: Accountability and AI Agents✦ from: A computer can never be held accountable, and therefore a computer must never make a management decision, as stated in IBM's 1979 training materials.Why Accountability Doesn't Transfer✦ from: An LLM-powered agent should never be considered the DRI for a project, because accountability is a uniquely human capacity that machines lack.
Related episodes
Article · Big Technology

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI makes serious claims. Will they matter?

→
Video · Syntax

LGTM, Ship It: The AI Code Review Problem

→
Video · Syntax

Do You Read The Code? ⟡ HTTP Gets a NEW Method ⟡ Codex Gets Sol Ultra ⌁ Syntax Weekly ⌁

→